On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:18:25 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however.. there are still things that could go wrong and I
prefer not to find out when a production server heads south or doesn't
have the right firmware on the RAID card.. so that's why I lag.
You can very well lag
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Subhro wrote:
What about my question about boot strapping? Does that ensure that
I could compile the world/kernel of 4.x on 5.3?
John
No it does not. To be precise as far as I know, there is no way you
can compile a native 4.X
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 18:11, John Gillis wrote:
My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade
my non-production machines to 5.3 once it is released, however I'd like
the production servers to lag behind once I make sure everything is
working right.
This might
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Subhro wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:18:25 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however.. there are still things that could go wrong and I
prefer not to find out when a production server heads south or doesn't
have the right firmware on
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 09:52:52AM +0530, Subhro wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:11:05 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade
my non-production machines to 5.3
Nice idea
once it is released, however I'd
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:35 +0200, Erik Trulsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you actually believe that I have a very nice bridge here you might
be interested in. It is certainly the goal that things which worked on
4.x will continue to work in 5.x, and it might even work out that way
in
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:06:19 +0200, Erik Trulsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You do realise that you can install gcc 3.4 on a 4.x machine and run
the binaries compiled with it?
For C++ the ABI has changed a couple of times betwenn gcc 2.95 and gcc
3.4, but for C everything should work
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Subhro
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:24 PM
To: John Gillis; FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Compiling 4-RELEASE on 5-STABLE
Depends. It it is a 486sx it will not run 5.x (support for FPU-less
systems
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:45:38PM +0100, Walker, Michael wrote:
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Subhro
Yeh, I forgot to mention about the FPU. Thanks for adding up.
Just on a side note here, could someone explain to me what a 'FPU-less'
system actually is?
Ancient history. FPU means
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:53:31PM +0530, Subhro typed:
[...]
First of all, I guess u got a bit too aggresive which I believe is
unnecessary. Secondly, Try disassembling a 4.X binary and a 5.X
binary, you will understand what I mean. I have done it myself and I
am sure about it. Things start
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Subhro wrote:
What about my question about boot strapping? Does that ensure that
I could compile the world/kernel of 4.x on 5.3?
John
No it does not. To be precise as far as I know, there is no way you
can compile a native
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:11:05 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade
my non-production machines to 5.3
Nice idea
once it is released, however I'd like
the production servers to lag behind once I make sure
If everything is not working right, then 5.3 wouldnever be tagged
STABLE. This is not Windows.
Granted, however I need to make sure that everything works fine in
my environment on my hardware with my software. The reason I use FreeBSD
is that I trust your release engineering moreso than
13 matches
Mail list logo
